asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Her Majesty's Government will release those men sentenced to terms of penal servitude for the Crossmaglen conspiracy, after having suffered nearly five years' imprisonment, though no person was injured by any action of the said conspirators?

The cases of these prisoners have been several times considered. Two of them have been released, one three years ago and another last month. The clemency of the Crown was thus exercised in consequence of special circumstances affecting the individual cases. In all the other cases it has been several times decided by more than one Viceroy that the law must take its course.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that any persons had suffered from the action of those men who had been sent into penal servitude?

I presume that these persons were sentenced for offences against the law.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the complaints made as to the large number of stowaways from Liverpool (sometimes as many as five per week) landed at Queens-town from the American liners, all of whom being quite destitute become a charge on the rates of the Cork Poor Law Union; and, whether, having regard to the fact that the English Poor Law protects the local rates in converse cases, the Government propose to take any steps to relieve the Cork ratepayers from the burden cast upon them by the state of things in question?

The attention of the late Chief Secretary was called to this matter; but it did not appear that anything could be done to alter what is complained of without a change in the law. Whether legislation on the subject of settlement should be undertaken is a very large question. It certainly cannot be undertaken now. Perhaps the facts as to Cork are of less gravity than the hon. Member supposes. The inquiries made by the Local Government Board show that out of 484 persons landed at Queenstown in the manner complained of in the last five years, only 14 remain in the workhouse; 200 took their departure the day after their admission, and 150 within a few days.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the case that the recent improvement in the pay and allowances of the Army Medical Service, on the faith of which the former dearth has now given place to an ample supply of highly qualified candidates, does not extend to India; whether, in every other branch of the Military Service, the increased cost of living in India is met by largely increased pay and allowances; whether there is any corresponding increase in the pay or allowances of Army Surgeons serving in India, and whether it is true that they are subjected to many expenses in the discharge of their duties from which other Officers are exempt; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the facts, with a view to the redressing of any grievance that may exist?

In 1884, when the home rates of pay of the Army Medical Service were raised, no change was made in the Indian rates of pay, which were considered already adequate. In every branch of the Military Service Indian rates of pay of officers are higher than home rates to meet the increased cost of living in India. The Medical Branch is no exception; the rates of pay in India are higher than at home. I am not aware that Army Surgeons serving in India are subjected to expenses in the discharge of their duties from which other officers are exempt. As the facts of the case are well known it is not intended to make any inquiry into the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice of England, concurred in by the Hon. Mr. Justice Denman, in the case of "Armstrong and others," v. "Armit and others;" whether his attention has been called to those parts of the said judgment in which—

"(a.) It has been held that it is a matter of National importance that the representative of a firm interested in the manufacture of ordnance should not have to examine guns on behalf of the Government for our National defences, (b.) That persons should not be allowed to occupy a double capacity, that is to say, that members of the Government Department that has to see that proper guns are supplied should not also be interested in the contracting Company who have obtained from the Government the right, privilege, and profit of manufacturing guns for our National defences;"

and, whether, in view of the foregoing judicial opinion, he will take steps to prevent manufacturers, or those in any way interested in firms contracting with the Government, from sitting either as members or associated members of the Ordnance or other Committee having for its object the recommendation for adoption in Her Majesty's Service of warlike or other stores supplied by said firms?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, it will be convenient to ask him whether his attention has also been called to the fact that the Lord Chief Justice on the same occasion is reported to have spoken of the Ordnance Committee as having "to select particular firms to supply ordnance;" and, whether Lord Coleridge was accurate in assuming that any such function appertained to the Ordnance Committee?

In answer to the hon. Gentleman opposite, my attention was not drawn to this particular paragraph in the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice; but I have no hesitation in saying that it is no part of the functions of the Ordnance Select Committee to select firms as contractors for the supply of ordnance or any ammunition or materials for the use of the Services. As a matter of fact they have no voice in the matter. I have, of course, seen the reports in the newspapers of the judgments of the Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Denman to which the hon. and gallant Member refers; and I give my cordial assent to the general principles laid down by the learned Judges. They had, however, only a portion of the case before them, on which, as the hon. and gallant Member is aware, a trial is now pending; and it is my duty, therefore, to refrain from expressing any opinion, or of taking any action on the facts so far as they have been ascertained. I shall, however, be prepared to state on Votes 12 and 15 of the Army Estimates the circumstances under which my Predecessors in Office invited the assistance of Sir William Armstrong and Captain Noble, of the Armstrong Company, and Mr. Leece, and subsequently Mr. Gledhill, of the Whitworth Company, in considering designs for guns.

asked, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the usual practice of appointing the medical officer of a dis- pensary district in Ireland to take charge of the Constabulary within his district was not followed in the case of Dr. William Jordan, recently appointed to the Castlebar, county Mayo, Dispensary; and, whether it is a fact that Dr. Jordan applied for the position, which had been for many years past held by his predecessor in the dispensary?

, in reply, said, he was informed that the usual practice was not as stated in the Question. The Inspector General of Constabulary received the names of the medical gentlemen who were available. It was the case that Dr. Jordan applied for the appointment; but the Constabulary Authorities did not consider him the most suitable man for the appointment. He was a very junior practitioner, and, in fact, only received his diploma a few weeks ago.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If a bill of indictment against a man named Denis Murphy, for shooting at Mr. William Cotter, with intent to kill, was sent before the Grand Jury of the county Cork at the recent Court of Assize held in the city of Cork; if Murphy had been returned for trial from the Bantry Petty Sessions, at which the resident magistrates adjudicated; if Mr. Cotter positively swore before the grand jury that Murphy fired at him; if another witness swore that he heard Murphy state he intended shooting Mr. Cotter; whether Sergeant Binns made an information to the effect that Murphy admitted having fired the shot from a revolver at the instigation of his brother; if Constable Binns found a revolver at Murphy's house; whether, notwithstanding all this proof against Murphy, the grand jury ignored the bill against him; and, what action the Government intend taking in the matter?

A bill of indictment against Denis Murphy for firing at William Cotter with intent to kill was laid before the County Cork Grand Jury at the last Assizes, and was ignored. Murphy had been returned for trial on this charge from Bantry Petty Sessions, and among the depositions was one by Sergeant Binns, in which he swore that Murphy when asked in his own house gave him a revolver, and afterwards on the way to the barracks told him that he had fired the shot against the road or ditch, by direction of his brother Timothy, to frighten Cotter. I do not know, and I am precluded from inquiring, what occurred before the Grand Jury; but having read the depositions, I can conceive that the Grand Jury had good grounds for ignoring the bill. Under these circumstances, I do not intend to take any further action in the matter.

inquired whether any Resident Magistrates were sitting at the Petty Sessions at Bantry?

replied that he believed there was one Resident Magistrate there on the occasion of the man being committed.

There were two.

Oh! it is quite possible.

asked whether any of the magistrates who adjudicated at the Bantry Petty Sessions were members of the Grand Jury?

I cannot say.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in view of the fact that mixed trains, composed of passenger and goods carriages, are a source of danger to the public and to those employed by the Railway Companies, from the increased risk in the composition of such trains, of their either breaking loose or the breaking of axles, and also from the difficulty of stopping them conveniently at the platforms, he proposes to make it obligatory on Railway Companies to minimise such danger to the public and the Companies' servants by having continuous brakes fitted on all trains composed of waggons and carriages?

The Board of Trade have no authority to impose upon Railway Companies the use of any particular form of brake. The matter referred to by the hon. Member is one of much im- portance and of no little difficulty; but I can promise him that the subject shall receive careful consideration.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the ratepayers of Camlough Division of the Newry Union complained at the Boardroom of the last made rate for the Camlough Division having been double of last year; and, whether the excess is solely due to the official staff of that Union costing more than the support of the paupers; and if the Government will direct an inquiry?

, in reply, said, it was a fact that some ratepayers of the Camlough Division of the Newry Union complained at the Board Room of the last made rate for the division having been double that of last year. It appeared, however, to be inevitable. The Local Government Board reported that the expenses of both outdoor and indoor relief were exceptionally large, and that the increase of the rates was not due in any way to the expenses of the official staff, which, including the expenses of two dispensary doctors, amounted to only 2d. in the pound.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many persons have been evicted within the last three weeks at Carrigeen, Luffany, and Ballygory, county Kilkenny; at whose suit; and, what was, in each case, the yearly rent, the valuation, the law costs, and the costs of carrying out the evictions?

One eviction only took place in the time and locality mentioned. It was at the suit of Messrs. Lecky. The yearly rent was £1, and the valuation 15s. The law costs were £2 10s. 10d. The tenant had paid no rent for seven years. Since the eviction he has paid the amount demanded and been reinstated. The amount of the costs incurred by the Constabulary for conveyance, &c. had not yet been ascertained.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether there is any and, if any, what objection to adopting the French system of allowing circulars to be sent in open envelopes at the lower (viz. halfpenny) rate; and, if not, whether he will introduce it?

I would remind the hon. Member that a similar Question was asked on Tuesday last by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson). I do not think I can add anything to the reply then given; but if the hon. Gentleman desires I will repeat it.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the alleged irregularities in the way the Parliamentary Lists of Voters have been distributed in Leitrim North by the Clerk of the Peace; whether instructions will be given to the said Clerk of the Peace to substitute the proper lists for the lists of the Kiltyclogher and Kinlough polling stations at present exhibited at the Glenfarne and East Bars Post Offices in the Manorhamilton District; and, whether care will be taken in future to give the electors in their respective polling districts a fair opportunity to examine the Parliamentary Lists of Voters for such districts?

was understood to say that the Clerk of the Peace had acted under a misapprehension in the matter, and care would be taken by the officer not to repeat the irregularities.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, having regard to the additional and very onerous duties imposed upon Poor Law officials in Ireland under the Franchise Acts of 1885, and to the great reluctance manifested by Boards of Guardians to vote adequate remuneration in such cases, the Government proposes to make a grant on this account for the present year as was done in 1885?

The Local Government Board do not find that Boards of Guardians generally are disinclined to afford fair remuneration to the Poor Law officials for the duties in question, and it is not proposed this year to ask Parliament to pass a Vote, as was done in the very exceptional circumstances of last year.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, since the report of the Commission on Scotch Fisheries relative to trawling, scientific opinion has changed considerably as to the injurious effect of trawling on coast fisheries; if trawling has been put a stop to in different parts of Scotland in consequence; if it is a fact that the Coast Guard Officer in Galway stated in a report that the fishing in Galway Bay has been destroyed by trawling; if it is a fact that the Galway fishermen are very much opposed to trawling; and, if the Government can induce the Fishery Commissioners in Ireland to limit the operations of trawling boats in Galway Bay?

The Inspectors of Irish Fisheries are not aware that scientific opinion with regard to the injurious effects of trawling has changed as suggested. If the hon. Baronet has any information on the subject, perhaps he will be good enough to communicate it to the Government or to the Inspectors. The by-laws prohibiting trawling on the Scotch Coast are expressly described by the Scotch Inspectors in their last annual Report now before the House as being merely experimental. It is true that the Galway fishermen are opposed to trawling, and that the Coastguard officer at Galway has expressed the opinion that it is injurious; but this officer was produced as a witness at the inquiry recently held at Galway. when the value of his opinion might have been tested. No evidence was given on that occasion which would justify the Inspectors in limiting the operations of trawling boats in Galway Bay.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the Local Government Board is assured that in all union workhouses such accommodation is provided that no married couples are separated who, by being over sixty years of age, have the legal right to live together?

Last November the Local Government Board issued a Circular to Boards of Guardians, calling their attention to the duty devolving upon them under the statutory provisions with reference to the non-separation in the workhouse of husband and wife in certain cases. From the replies that have been received, there would not appear to be that anxious desire which some people think exists on the part of these aged couples to live together. On the contrary, over and over again it is stated that where provision is made it is not availed of. One clerk to a Board reported that in the only instance within his knowledge in which the advantages of association were adopted by an old pair in a certain workhouse they lived together for about a year; but the experiment was not attended with a satisfactory result. They were so constantly quarrelling that after repeated attempts to reconcile them they desired to be placed in the ordinary wards, and they remained there. [An hon. MEMBER: Where was that?] In Camberwell. We have no reason to believe that any cases exist where the accommodation is desired and is not furnished; but if the hon. Gentleman knows of any case, and will inform me of it, I will at once cause inquiries to be made and see that the provisions of the law are fulfilled.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that, out of the adult male population in the recent Gweedore evictions, a large number of persons have, as an act of charity, been given free passages to England, per steamer from Bunbeg, to enable them to earn at harvesting work money wherewith to redeem the evicted holdings?

I am informed that during the last few days 130 persons have left Gweedore for the purpose of engaging in harvest work in Scotland. That is usual at this season of the year, and there is no reason to suppose that there is any particular object in view on the present occasion. Some of those persons were amongst the persons recently evicted. I understand that the parish priest lent them money to pay the passages.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government have decided to appoint a Committee of both Houses of Parliament to inquire and report upon the question of Imperial Federation between the United Kingdom and her Colonies?

My hon. Friend will, I am sure, understand that it would be impossible, without risk of misapprehension, to state the views of Her Majesty's Government upon this subject within the limits of an answer to a Question. But at present I can only say that, in accordance with the promise given by the Prime Minister to the deputation at the Colonial Office, the Government have taken this matter into their very careful consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the final Report of the Accidents in Mines Commission is out of print; and, if so, whether the Government will take steps for having an edition printed which will enable the large body of Her Majesty's subjects, who are deeply interested in its contents and recommendations, to have access to them?

No, Sir; this Report is not yet out of print, there being still about 160 copies left in stock. When this stock is exhausted or much reduced it will be time to consider the advisability of republishing the Report only, without the evidence and illustrations, as a cheap work.

asked the Secretary for Scotland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce, at an early date next Session, a Bill to restrain corrupt practices at municipal elections in Scotland?

I may remind the hon. Member that in 1884 the proposal of the then Government to extend to Scotland the provisions of the Bill relating to corrupt practices at municipal elections was resisted by some of the Scotch Members; but I will examine into the subject during the Recess, and deal with it according to the result of my inquiries.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is, as alleged, true, that delays take place in the office of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, in the registration of rules and amendments; what are the causes of such delays, if any, and whether they are removable; and, whether he will cause to be furnished a Return of all registrations of rules or alterations effected or applied for during the last five years, stating, in each case, when the rules or alterations were first lodged for registration, when the registration was or may be expected to be completed, and the causes of any delay?

, in reply, said, it was not the fact that any avoidable delay took place. If the hon. Gentleman would furnish him with the particulars of any case in which he thought there had been unreasonable delay, he (Mr. Jackson) would make inquiries on the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the Commercial Treaty lately concluded between France and China, to regulate trade between Tonquin and China, the 14th Article provides for the total prohibition of trade in opium between Tonquin and China; and, whether he will lay Copies of the Treaty upon the Table?

The 14th Article of the Commercial Treaty between France and China engages that neither foreign nor Native opium shall be allowed to be conveyed overland across the frontiers of Tonquin and three Provinces of China named therein for purchase or sale. There will be no objection to lay upon the Table a copy of the Treaty, if the hon. Member chooses to move for it.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to a Memorandum of the Governor General of India, dated 25th February 1886, in which His Excellency recommends "that great pains should betaken to administer justice (in Upper Burmah) in such a manner as will stand the test of searching public criticism;" whether it is true that for months after His Excellency's recommendation Native prisoners in Mandalay were tried by Captain Adamson, an Artillery officer destitute of legal training, privately at his own house, and without right of appeal; whether any record of the evidence was or is kept; whether the system continues in operation; and, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the number of prisoners tried by Captain Adamson, since February last, who have been shot or hanged, the number of prisoners sentenced by him to transportation and im- prisonment, and the number of thousands of years to which these aggregate sentences amount, and the number of prisoners flogged, with the aggregate number of lashes inflicted?

I cannot identify the particular Memorandum referred to in the Question; but the words quoted correctly represent the views which the Viceroy has always held on the administration of justice in Upper Burmah. Captain Adamson has been in civil employment in Burmah since 1871. He was seven years an Assistant Magistrate, chiefly stationed at Rangoon; three years Assistant Commissioner, and nearly five years Deputy Commissioner. At the beginning of this year he was selected, in consequence of his long legal training and experience, for the responsible position of Deputy Commissioner at Mandalay. He remained at this post until compelled by illness to quit it. Trials sometimes took place at his private house, because Court accommodation was limited, and other officers were trying cases in the regular Court. Captain Adamson's house was at all times open to the public. Records of the trials were kept. No radical alteration of the system has been made; but the Government of India are now engaged in framing laws and regulations for the government of Upper Burmah. The Secretary of State is making full inquiry into the administration of the Criminal Law in Upper Burmah; but I cannot undertake to lay any Return upon the Table which would appear to give any countenance to the charge against Captain Adamson suggested in the Question. The Government of India have had full confidence in his zeal, integrity, consideration for the people, and desire to do justice.

gave Notice that in consequence of the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman he would call attention to the subject on the Report of the Address.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to Belfast riots, Whether im- portant official telegrams might not in future be written in cypher?

Yes, Sir; official telegrams are frequently sent in cypher.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is possible, and if he will so modify the Army or other Estimates as will enable him to increase the Capitation Grant to the Volunteers by ten shillings per man?

(who replied) said: No, Sir; I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the Question of the noble Lord the Member for East Hampshire (Viscount Wolmer) on the 23rd of August. The Returns not being complete, I am unable to come to any decision at present.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether the benefits recently granted to the public by the introduction of a reduced charge for the transmission of telegrams could be further extended to the poorer classes in country districts, by a proportionate reduction of the rates for the porterage of telegrams?

In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the charge for porterage of telegrams beyond the free delivery is 6d. a-mile under three miles, and I scarcely think it would be possible to offer less to any person engaged to deliver a message. The porterage is paid to the messenger, and does not belong to the Department. The rate for a mounted messenger is, as a rule, 1s. a-mile from the office door; but in some cases owners of horses are willing to take rather less, and the public get the benefit. I do not think the charge excessive for the service rendered.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Lords of the Admiralty, on their approaching visit to Portsmouth, will consider the question of freeing the Haslar Bridge, which would be a boon to the relatives and friends of seamen and others in the Royal Navy, who are now required to pay toll in going to and returning from the Royal Naval Hospital?

We will consider the question of freeing Haslar Bridge during our inspection at Portsmouth; but as it will involve a considerable sum of money I am not sanguine that it can be done.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether the materials collected by the Agricultural Department would render it practicable to supplement Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6, of the Allotment Returns just presented to Parliament, by similar Tables giving the same information for each union or parish, instead of for counties only, so as to enable a better opinion to be formed as to the localities in which a deficiency of allotment or garden land for the agricultural labourers may exist; and, whether he would cause such further Tables to be presented to Parliament?

The Statistical Department is now fully engaged in preparing the Agricultural Returns for the year; but I have directed inquiries to be made into the practicability of compiling the information asked for within a reasonable time after those Returns have been issued.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether recently a telegraph clerk, who had been absent from duty for a week under a medical certificate of sickness, was peremptorily ordered, a few days after a fresh medical certificate had been furnished, to present himself for examination by the chief medical officer of the Post Office; whether he had been advised by his medical attendant to confine himself to the house; whether, on presenting himself as directed, he was told that he was "making a lot of fuss about nothing," and that he must resume his duty on the following Monday; whether he resumed his duty accordingly; whether he was placed on one of the heaviest wires in the Division; and, whether within a fortnight from the day of resuming duty he was dead?

I have endeavoured to identify the case to which the hon. Member refers, and think he must allude to a telegraphist named Billinghurst, who died on August 9. The circumstances respecting his illness are not stated accurately in the Question. The facts are as follows:—Mr. Billinghurst was absent from duty from July 10 to July 23, on account of deranged liver. He attended to see the medical officer on July 23, said "he was feeling much better," and should be able to resume duty on Monday, July 26, when he took his ordinary circuit in accordance with the duty list. He remained on duty till Saturday, July 31, but consulted the medical officer on July 27, and again an July 30, which was the last occasion on which he saw the medical officer. He did not ask for further leave of absence, but for a change to Dover as soon as could be arranged. On Monday, August 2, he sent a medical certificate stating that he was not fit to attend. On August 5 he was written to to attend to see the medical officer if well enough. He did not attend, but sent a certificate to say he was suffering from fever. On the 9th he was asked to forward a certificate of the nature of the fever. The reply was a certificate stating he died on the 9th of typhoid fever. The words imputed to the medical officer are absolutely denied.

gave Notice that in Committee of Supply he would call attention to this case and also to other cases of alleged misconduct on the part of the chief medical officer of the Post Office.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, If the Govern- ment are aware that numbers of chemists in London prescribe medicinally for all sorts of diseases; if it is legal for chemists who have no medical or surgical degree to prescribe and make up medicines, in many of which poisonous drugs are used; and, if the Government will take steps to put an end to this practice, now that proper medical advice can be obtained for small fees?

The Government have no special information upon the subject referred to in the first part of the Question, though it is very probable that chemists are in the habit of prescribing medicinally to persons coming to their shops. As to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, by which it is made unlawful for persons since 1868, unless registered under that Act, to retail, dispense, or compound the poisons referred to in the Schedule of that Act and in subsequent Resolutions of the Pharmaceutical Society approved by the Privy Council. I have only to add that the Government have under consideration the question of further regulating the sale of poisons.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether an outbreak of disturbance has invariably attended Mr. Clifford Lloyd's appearance as an official in every position to which he was appointed; whether, in the Island of the Mauritius, an amendment to the Address, expressing confidence in Sir John Pope Hennessy and approval of his past administration, was moved by Sir Virgile Naze, and passed by a majority of the representative Members; and, whether an address of confidence in the Governor, signed by 6,000 of the inhabitants, was sent to and received by the Colonial Office?

I have already informed the House that the position of affairs in the Mauritius being still under consideration, I hoped that I might be permitted, for the present, not to answer Questions calculated to prejudice either party to the dispute. It is, however, only fair that I should say that the unfortunate state of affairs in the Mauritius existed long before Mr. Clifford Lloyd's advent.

said, he felt bound to complain that the Secretary of State for the Colonies had not answered the Question which he had put on the Paper with reference to the relations between Mr. Clifford Lloyd and Sir John Pope Hennessy.

I cannot think it likely to promote the interests of good government in Mauritius that I should answer these Questions. I must decline to answer Questions which have as their object either to support or attack Sir John Pope Hennessy on the one hand, or Mr. Clifford Lloyd on the other.

Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman declines to answer the Question?

I am, of course, in the hands of the House; but as far as I am concerned I entirely decline to answer.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists at the delay in issuing the Return of the Accounts of Life Insurance Companies, as expressed in the various articles in the Insurance Press on the matter; and, if it is possible to issue the Return earlier?

(who replied) said: The Board of Trade have not received any complaints on the subject of this Question, and their attention had not been called to the notices in the Insurance Press until the Question was placed on the Paper by the hon. Member. Arrangements have been made which will, we hope, insure the presentation of the Life Assurance Returns at an earlier period in future years.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any further intelligence has been received respecting the inundation of Mandalay; how many lives have been lost; and, what steps have been taken to relieve the destitution occasioned by the accident amongst the native population, and to ascertain the causes of the disaster?

The Viceroy telegraphed on the 27th August that the floods had fallen six feet. Only 12 bodies have been found, and the District Officer reports that he does not think that more than this number have perished, search having been continued for 10 days. As regards the relief of the destitute, a pound of rice and half-an-anna is given daily to all applicants, who average about 300 a day. There is a great deal of work now going on in the neighbourhood of Mandalay and in other districts, on roads. A Committee has been appointed to investigate the circumstances of the bursting of the embankment. A similar accident occurred in 1877, when the flood was three feet less than on the present occasion.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, If the Government intend next Session to introduce a Bill dealing with the present system of registration of Parliamentary Voters?

I am afraid I cannot give to the hon. Gentleman any undertaking as to the Business of next Session. The Government anticipate that there will be ample time in which to deal with this question before another General Election.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether any, and, if so, what, steps were taken in the matter of providing troop ships with Catholic chaplains, pursuant to the undertaking given by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 27th March 1882; whether it is the fact that the Catholic seamen and marines of the Channel Fleet have no means of attend- ing mass on Sunday unless when in port; whether it frequently happens that the Fleet is not in port on Sunday; whether it is the fact that, when the Catholics on board have no opportunity of attending service on shore, they are required to attend the service of the Protestant chaplain, or whether it is the practice for them to do so; whether it is the fact that there are at present over 400 Catholic seamen and marines on board H.M.S. Agincourt; and, whether the Government will undertake to provide every troop ship having a considerable proportion of Catholics on board with a Catholic chaplain?

The steps taken were that whenever more than 300 Roman Catholic soldiers were embarked in any of the Indian troopships, a Catholic chaplain should be sent in the ship and the necessary accommodation provided for him. The Catholic seamen and marines of the Channel Fleet have no means of attending mass on Sundays, except when in port. The requirements of the Service frequently necessitate the Fleet being at sea on Sundays. It is not the case that Catholics are required to attend the service of the Protestant chaplain at any time, and it is not the practice for them to do so. The number of Catholics on board the Agincourt at the present time is 127, out of a complement of 883, which is much above the average, Roman Catholics constituting only 10 per cent of the Fleet generally. The Admiralty have not added Roman Catholic chaplains to the complement of troopships, but a cabin will be provided for them when the Secretary of State for War considers it desirable that a Roman Catholic chaplain should accompany the troops.

said, he had not understood the noble Lord to answer that part of the Question which inquired whether it was not the practice to make Roman Catholics attend the services of the Protestant chaplains?

said, he had answered that they were not required to attend the services, and it was not the practice to make them do so.

Is the noble Lord aware whether it is the practice for them to attend?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is true, as reported in the American press, that the Secretary of the Navy of the United States recently stated in Congress that, owing to the influence of Messieurs. W. G. Armstrong, Mitchell, and Company (Limited), an agent of the Navy Department of the United States Government had been granted access to the confidential designs of the ships of the British Navy at the Admiralty, in London; and, whether the price paid by the said agent to Messieurs. Armstrong, Mitchell, and Company, for a ship's design, was not £5,000?

I have to reply to the first part of the Question that the statement referred to is not true. The Naval Attaché of the United States Legation has, on application to the Secretary of the Admiralty, received the sanction of the Board to certain information in connection with the construction of some of Her Majesty's ships being furnished to him, as has been done in the case of the Naval Attachés of other countries on their official application. The Admiralty has no information as to the business transactions of Messrs. Armstrong, Mitchell, and Co. with the Government of the United States. As this is not the first Question put to me imputing either breach of trust or improper conduct to Admiralty officials, I hope that before any further charges of the same kind are made the Member putting the Question will take the trouble of ascertaining whether there is reasonable ground for assuming that there is any truth in the allegations with which he associates his name.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the Phaeton at Portsmouth, and the recent several "breaks down" of her machinery, Whether he is satisfied that due caution was observed by those responsible for taking over the engines from the contractors before they were finally accepted; whether the last breaking of one of her pistons and cylinders is due to some inherent me- chanical defect in the engines themselves, and such as no caution on the part of the engineers's staff on board could foresee or guard against; whether, immediately prior to the ship being commissioned, her engine-room staff of officers and stokers were drafted off for service in other ships with the sole exception of the chief engineer, thereby necessitating the appointment of other engineers and men entirely unacquainted with the engines, and depriving the chief engineer of the assistance to which he had been accustomed; whether such action meets with his approval, and whether it may not have contributed to her break down; and, whether the other ships of Phaeton class are engined by the same firm of contractors, and whether any serious complaints have been received in respect of their machinery?

Due caution was not observed in certain particulars by those responsible for taking over the engines of the Phaeton from the contractors. The several officers concerned have been censured by the Admiralty, and the chief engineer has been removed from the ship. The last accident, whereby one of the cylinders was injured, was caused by the breaking of a piston rod. The rod where broken shows the existence of a defect not previously apparent, but which may have existed for some time. The defect is one which it would be difficult for the engineer staff on board to foresee and guard against, but the subject is being now inquired into. With the exception of the chief engineer, and sometimes one other, there is no engine-room staff actually belonging to a ship of this size until she is put into commission. The staff necessary for the efficient maintenance of the machinery is supplied by the Steam Reserve, and when orders are received to commission the ship the men who have been employed upon her are as far as possible selected to compose her engine-room staff. In the case of the Phaeton the men who had been so employed had, from various causes, been drafted away before the order was received to commission her, with the exception of three stokers who formed part of her staff. None of the accidents that subsequently occurred in the ship can be attributed to this cause. The Leander and Arethusa are of the Phaeton class, and were built and engined by the same contractors, Messrs. Napier, of Glasgow, but no serious complaints have been received in respect of the machinery of these two ships.

asked whether the cylinder of the Phaeton, as well as the piston, had broken?

said, there was a crack in one of the cylinders.

asked, Whether the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs could tell the House whether the message of Prince Alexander of Bulgaria to the Emperor of Russia and His Imperial Majesty's reply, which had appeared in the newspapers, were authentic?

We have been informed that some such communications have passed, but we are not in official possession of the documents. The hon. Member will have observed that they were published in the official Gazette at St. Petersburg.

, in rising to move—

"That the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means, and all stages of the Appropriation Bill, have precedence of other Orders of the Day and the Notices of Motions on every day on which they may be appointed; that the Standing Order, No. 21, relating to Notices on going into Committee of Supply on Monday and Thursday be extended to the other days of the week,"

said: In proposing this Motion, which has been on the Paper for some days, perhaps the House will allow me to support it with a few preliminary remarks. I am not altogether without hope—though possibly the hope may seem a bold one—that this Motion may be agreed to without a division. The Motion, it will be observed, is in absolute and logical connection with the meeting of Parliament at this time of year. The policy of calling Parliament together at this time of year has been questioned in the course of preceding debates, and it undoubtedly is a policy which is open to argument. There is much to be said both for and against it. Undoubtedly, it involves great personal inconvenience and sacrifice to all hon. Members in this House, and the season of the year is, on many grounds, unsuited to the transaction of Public Business. On the other hand, there are strong reasons why the Government should not have postponed for any considerable length of time obtaining from Parliament the money necessary for the Services during the current year. The course which the Government adopted is exactly analogous to that adopted in 1841. In that year the Government of Lord Melbourne, after a General Election, was defeated on a Vote of Confidence on August 27. The Government resigned on August 30; the Writs for the election of Ministers who had accepted Office were issued on September 8, and Parliament assembled on September 16 for the transaction of indispensable Public Business. Sir Robert Peel then stated that it was the intention of the Government to limit the demand upon Parliament to the transaction of so much of the Business of Supply as had been left over by the outgoing Government, and, after a slight protest from Lord John Russell, that course was agreed to by the House without a division. But not only is our course founded upon the precedent of 1841; it is also, I submit, a strictly Constitutional course. The present Government, when they came into Office, could not feel any certainty that, as a Government, they would possess the confidence of Parliament; and I think that it will be apparent that a Government in that position would not have been acting in accordance with Constitutional precedents in spending during a period of several months large sums of public money. Moreover, we should have been spending large sums of public money in connection with the government of Ireland before one single important Irish Vote had been submitted to Parliament. We might have gone on spending money by means of Votes on Account, and the Irish Representatives would have had no opportunity of controlling the expenditure. That, I think, would not have been a Constitutional course. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) remarked last night that there was no Business of importance now before Parliament, and that the necessary Business of Supply might well have been put off until October. I do not think that the hon. Member will maintain that view on reflection. Suppose that Parliament had not been called together until October 1, and suppose that the debate on the Address had occupied the same amount of time which has been occupied recently, the month of October would probably have been almost entirely taken up, and it would have been out of the power of Parliament to deal efficiently with the Supplies of the year, and a further Vote on Account for a large sum of money would have been necessary. But more than that, if that course had been adopted, it would not have been in the power of the Government to proceed with any legislation, because the months of October, November, and December would have been entirely taken up with the consideration by Parliament of the £20,000,000 of Supply remaining to be voted for the Services of the year. The House will see that the margin of time for voting this large sum of money would have been excessively narrow if the assembling of Parliament had been postponed to the month of October. There is another matter which has been made the subject of comment—that the Government, though the Queen's Speech only referred to the Estimates, have in their speeches on the Address considerably enlarged the scope of the debate. I admit that this is a charge which may be brought, whether fairly and reasonably or not I will not say, but if the Government have made an error they have made the error from a cause which almost invariably leads to error—namely, that they have desired to please everybody. We were told by some that it would be highly improper for us to state, with any amount of detail, our policy for Ireland; and again we were told by others that it would be highly improper if we did not state, with a considerable amount of detail, our decided policy for Ireland. Well, we tried to pursue a middle course. We laid before the House, as is usual on the formation of a new Government, the views we entertained on the question of the hour beyond which we could not at present go. Undoubtedly we might have limited our- selves to the actual scope of the Queen's Speech, and have refused to make any communication whatever as to our views on the question of Ireland; but I am bound to say that I think that course would have exposed us to formidable attacks and accusations which it would have been difficult to meet satisfactorily. Now, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork which he has put down on the Paper indicates that in his opinion the House ought to proceed immediately with legislation for Ireland, either by the Government or on the Motion of private Members in the absence of such action being taken by the Government. I really cannot at all agree with, nor do I think any very large section of hon. Gentlemen opposite will be disposed to agree with that contention. I cannot conceive any policy more likely to bring into contempt the Executive Government and the Imperial Parliament in Ireland than that it should be supposed in Ireland that the Executive Government and the Imperial Parliament are ready, at almost 24 hours' notice, to turn out any quantity of schemes of legislation as a panacea for all the difficulties and grievances of that country. It is more than possible that many of the difficulties with which we have now to contend arise from that principle having been too much neglected; and certainly I was of opinion that when I stated to the House that the Government would ask the House to discourage legislation on the part of private Members at this time of the year, that statement met with general acceptance and approval in the House. It must be obvious to the hon. Member for Cork that what I may call the physical impossibilities of inducing the House of Commons to address itself seriously to large schemes of legislation at this period of the year are insuperable; and I cannot but nope that the hon. Member for Cork on serious reflection will find that there is on that subject not much difference of opinion between himself and Her Majesty's Government, and will be content with raising a discussion on this Motion, which discussion, I admit, he is legitimately entitled to raise. We have pledged ourselves as a Government to produce at the meeting of Parliament next year such schemes of legislation as we may be able to decide upon and mature in the autumn and winter; but I would seriously point out to the House that if the proceedings of this Session were to be greatly protracted, and if the energies of Members and Ministers were to be greatly exhausted by such protracted proceedings, it will obviously become almost impossible for the Government to fulfil that pledge—[Opposition laughter, and "Hear, hear!"]—we do not all possess the iron constitution of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere); few people do—and it will also become very difficult for the Government to summon Parliament as early next year. That is a matter which the House ought seriously to consider, not only in the interests of the Government—I ask no consideration on their behalf—but also in the interests of Parliament as a whole, and in the interests of the country. There is only one more consideration by which I support this Motion. This Motion is intended to wind up, with as much expedition as is reasonable and decent, the Business of the Session, and to allow Members to separate in reasonable time for the annual Recess. I would not, for a moment, wish the House to understand that I am advocating anything like a rapid or slovenly discussion of the Estimates. I have always protested against that, and always shall. I am not asking for anything but that the House will concentrate its attention on the Estimates, and proceed without unreasonable dilatoriness or loss of time. What I would submit to the House is this, and I submit it with all seriousness, that the difficulties which lie in the future before the Government are very great indeed. No one can be more deeply impressed with the magnitude of those difficulties than are my Colleagues and myself, and certainly I see no possibility of arriving at anything like a solution of those difficulties, unless the House and the country are prepared to give a reasonable amount of time during which the Government may take thought for a future so anxious and so grave. But I would also point out that, great as are the difficulties of the Government, the Opposition also are surrounded by great difficulties. It will not be easy for the Opposition, it must be a matter of immense consideration and deliberation for them to decide upon the line of action which may unite their forces, and may bring them into that path by which they may attain the object, and the honourable object, of all Oppositions—to place themselves in the position of governing the country. I imagine that they also will find great difficulty in arriving at a solution of that question, and certainly the element of time will not be against them. But, in the third place, I would add this, that, great as are the difficulties of the Government, considerable as are the difficulties of the Opposition, I think it is not impossible—I say this without wishing to give the slightest offence—that the difficulties of the hon. Member for Cork are great beyond all. Well, Sir, that being so, I submit that the main reason for this Motion is, that the Business of the House be conducted with reasonable expedition, and that all Parties who, in their own light, are animated by one object—namely, that of securing the welfare of the country—may take reasonable time to take stock of their position, and to realize, as far as they can, the prospects of the future. It may be that it will be impossible in the immediate future to avoid great and bitter controversies which may involve the fate of Ministries and the life of Parliament; but, at any rate, it is not imprudent, it is not impolitic, to suggest, before these controversies are finally entered upon, there should be a reasonable period for reflection and calculation, so that whatever the issue of the controversies may be, at any rate it may not be said that Parliament has been precipitate, or hurried, or rash in its conclusions. These are really the reasons—I will venture to call them reasons of high policy—which have induced the Government to make this large demand upon the Privileges of Parliament and the time of the House. It is not put forward in any controversial spirit, or with any desire to take any undue advantage of hon. Members, or to, in any way, hurry the voting of Supplies through the House. It is put forward solely and only in the interests of the House and the public, and because we believe that by this action we shall best secure the general convenience of Parliament at large, and the general safety and security of the interests which, for the time, we have committed to our charge.

said, he thought the Motion of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) at this time of the Session was an unprecedented proceeding, and ought not to be agreed to without great consideration on the part of hon. Members. The noble Lord had wandered back to 1841 in order to find a precedent—the only semblance of a precedent on the matter—but he did not go into the details of that precedent. On that occasion Parliament was dissolved early in August, and the Elections took place in September, and Parliament was called together on the 18th of September.

On that occasion Parliament was dissolved on June 26. The Government resigned on August 30.

said, that, however that might be, the noble Lord did not tell the House whether the Session of 1841 was practically a barren Session. Before he dealt with the character of the Motion he wished to say a few words in reference to the speech in which the noble Lord sought to enforce his views on the House. Not only was the attempted parallel between the two cases no parallel at all, but the noble Lord had misquoted the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). The noble Lord represented the hon. Member for Cork as having said last night that there was no urgent Business before the House; but what he did say was that there was no legislation before the House, and that the Business for which it was now proposed to take the whole time of the House to the exclusion of all other possible Business was not urgent, since the Government had enough money to carry them on until the 31st of October. The noble Lord had said that the explanations which the Government had given of their Irish policy had been given owing to a desire on their part to try and please all Parties. There certainly had been no apparent desire of this character in anything which the Government had done. The Government had tried to justify the reason why it had not stated its policy in the Speech from the Throne by hinting that the declaration of policy was to be made in speeches in the House. Now that was contrary to the facts. It must have been evident to all that it was impossible for the Government to state their policy and continue to exist, and that the policy of the Government would not be made known unless on compulsion. One of the reasons which had led hon. Members on that side of the House to oppose this Motion arose out of those very explanations for which the noble Lord took credit. Then, considering the course of Business recommended by the Government, he recognized that under certain circumstances, such as the time of the year, the condition of the country and the like, there might be little to say against the Resolution of the noble Lord. But these were not such circumstances as those in which they now found themselves. The conditions of the present situation, so far at least as Ireland was concerned, were of such a character that it was necessary for the noble Lord in the fulfilment of his duty to prove urgency before he could ask the House to pass the Resolution. What was that Resolution? It was a demand for the whole time of the House for Business already provided for, and that Standing Order 21 should be rescinded, and the only reason given for this demand was that hon. Members were tired and wanted to get away for a holiday. The effect of the passing of the second clause would be, as a matter of fact, to prevent the bringing up of grievances before Supply, or the discussion of anything not strictly confined to the Resolution in question. Thus, there would be but one discussion on the Army, one on the Navy, and one on the Civil Service Estimates, and private Members would be deprived of Tuesdays, Wednesday, and Fridays, the days on which other discussions and grievances most important to the public would take place. He contended that there never had been an occasion on which the Irish Members ought to be more jealous in granting the Government money before the expression of their grievances. As to the time of year at which the present Parliament had been called, he could not treat that as an argument for the Resolution. Who was it that urged on the late Government that Parliament should meet at this season of the year? The last Government had wished to postpone the meeting of Parliament until October, but the present Government insisted that a pledge should be given that Parliament would be called together immediately after the Elections. The late Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) had declared that no consideration would induce him to postpone the measures which he considered necessary for the difficulty in Ireland, and in answer to appeals from Irish Members and from Members of the present Government that it would be a dereliction of duty to postpone the Irish Question over next winter. The Conservative Party agreed that the Irish Question was urgent; but now that they were in Office they wanted to postpone it. It was said that a policy for Ireland could not be framed in 24 hours; but those who spoke in this tone reminded one of Rip Van Winkle, and must have forgotten that the Irish Question had been discussed ad nauseam for the past five years. However, though the month of August was not a pleasant one to be in London, yet why did the Government meet in it, for if they had honest intentions to deal with the Irish Question, they could have postponed the meeting of Parliament till October? The Irish Party took care to impress the House that the difficulty in Ireland could not bear to wait, yet in the face of those warnings the present Government decided at any cost—perhaps he might say at a fearful cost—to postpone the evil hour, to summon Parliament in August that Members might be desirous of escaping from London owing to the strain of the season, and thus achieve the postponement of the Irish difficulty to next spring. The noble Lord had made an important statement to-night. It was only now that it had leaked out that the Government intended to meet Parliament in the spring with Irish proposals; and why this determination? A very few nights ago the Government had hoped that the Commission of Inquiry would report at the end of next spring, and stated that the Report would then require immense deliberation and consideration before the Government could come to any definite decision. The Irish Party, from the necessity of their situation, were compelled to continue the discussion, in the hope that the Government would still further mend their hand—in the hope that the Government would give them a policy, perhaps an ad interim and temporary policy, which would bridge over the evils which would surely follow on the continuance of their present attitude. He again reminded the Government that the House had been in possession of full information for years, and that the late Prime Minister in attempting to frame that information into legislation had been repeatedly assailed by the present Government to produce his policy, even a few weeks being grudged him to formulate it. The Irish Party would press the Government for their policy for carrying on the Executive in Ireland during the coming winter. So far as that policy appeared it might be divided into two parts—the first consisting of Irish proposals to be introduced at the beginning of next Session, and the second proposals for tiding over the winter, and carrying on the administration. The Government had practically laid before the House no distinct proposals of remedy for dealing with the immediate emergency in Ireland except the sending of General Buller to Kerry, and the firm administration of the law, and this course was to be pursued in the face of the failure of past experience of the same character. The conditions when the last Government came in were more favourable to an easy rule in Ireland than they were now, and yet at Christmas they had been told that they were face to face with a Coercion Bill. Proposals of policy precisely like those of the Government were carried into effect, and the consequence was that the policy had utterly broken down. Common sense would tell anybody that the pursuit of the same course, under a worse environment, would only end in the same goal of coercion, and that of an aggravated kind. When the Government had entered upon the task of governing Ireland last year they had sent over a Governor who—whatever dispute there might be as to his political views—had undoubtedly ingratiated himself a great deal with the people, and had led them to believe that he had come there to initiate the true policy—a policy of conciliation and concession. Lord Carnarvon had made a most remarkable declaration, which had undoubtedly aroused the hatred and indignation of Irish land- lords, and had encouraged the Irish people to hope and be peaceful. That declaration was a hint to the landlords to exercise their rights with prudence and restraint, and not to embarrass the Government. The consequence of this was that there was a most extraordinary falling off in the number of evictions in Ireland during last winter, a falling off averaging 50 per cent, which he could attribute to nothing but the declaration of Lord Carnarvon. But in the following quarter in 1886 the evictions rose to above their usual average, and this in consequence of a similar policy to that which the Government now intended to pursue—the policy of "no surrender," to use an Irish phrase of provocation—of the encouragement of the landlords, and the promise to them of the armed protection of the law in carrying out evictions. This would give the House the best reason to believe that the coming winter would be one of most dangerous disturbance in Ireland unless something different were done. The pursuance of the present policy would compel the Government, instead of meeting Parliament next spring with remedial measures, to revive coercion. The Irish Party had been accused of wasting time when they impressed on the Government arguments like these. They would, however, by persistent debate, continue still to try and induce the Government to hold out some hope of protection to the Irish tenants during the coming winter, and by so doing attempt their beat to prevent baneful occurrences, and hinder the Government from treading the old fatal path—which, as surely as the sun rose, they were certain to tread—followed so fruitlessly in the past. Would that not be worth a week or a fortnight of debate? If the Irish Members were put down, he could only say that the House would find to the cost of its time and temper that it made a great mistake in allowing the heat of August to make them shut their ears and ignore common sense and reason. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) enjoyed justly Tory confidence, and even he had stated, on the 9th April last, that the agrarian difficulty was the cause of the recrudescence of crime in Ireland, and that at least that cause should be made force- less for a time, and that the "Truce of God" existing in Ireland might be continued by bringing in a Bill to suspend all eviction for six months, leaving the question of arrears to be settled in connection with any ultimate settlement of the Land Question; and that he would throw upon the Government the duty of lending to the landlords such amounts as might be necessary to keep them out of distress and destitution. It was an extraordinary thing that the right hon. Gentleman should not have stood by that statement of his. Nothing had happened since the 9th of April to lessen the force of that appeal or the strain of the situation; on the contrary, much had occurred to accentuate it; and if the right hon. Gentleman had been justified at that time in the proposal which he had made, he was now bound ten times more strongly to support such a measure. On the 9th of April the people of Ireland had had many causes for suffering in patience which were now taken away from them, and that had been towards the beginning of summer, which was a time when the smallest number of evictions always took place. The appeal which the noble Lord had now made to the House was, in his opinion, a delusive one. The noble Lord had appealed to them to allow hon. Members to go away from that House in order calmly to consider the situation in Ireland. The situation in Ireland could not be calmly considered. Instead of calmly considering a state of things which required present remedy, they would go to their homes, not quietly to ruminate, but to be inflamed with accounts of the results of Irish evictions to such an extent that coercion, not remedy, would be the only consideration. The "Truce of God" spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham would be broken in Ireland, and the passions of the people would be so inflamed that they would not be in a temper to consider remedial measures. He maintained that the situation in Ireland would not wait; it would not allow them to consider it patiently. It required to be dealt with at present, and if it were not possible to deal with it permanently, it must be dealt with temporarily. Admittedly the winter in Ireland would be a dangerous one, and he strongly recommended the Government to show their earnestness by introducing even a temporary measure for six months. Before sitting down he wished to make a last appeal to the Government—that was that they would consider that the urgency of the case in Ireland was amply sufficient to justify the action he and those acting with him were taking. Further, that they would not give way to impatience—that they would not be deluded into the belief that they could brush aside Ireland and leave it until next spring. Besides, he assured the Government, by setting aside this question, they would be laying up for themselves, in the future, an enormous waste of public time and energy and of the temper of hon. Members of the House, compared with which any discussion just now was the merest child's play. He begged to move the Amendment to the Motion of the noble Lord of which he had given Notice.

Though I agree in a great deal which the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has said, I do not find myself able to concur in the conclusions at which he has arrived. In all that he has said as to the grave condition of Ireland at this moment I cordially concur. That is the position which this side of the House has taken from the earliest moment of the present year. We urged upon the former Conservative Government the necessity of taking remedial measures for dealing with the matter at once. When the late Government came into power they recognized the necessity of dealing with the Irish Question at once. They felt, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) stated, that one of the chief grounds which induced him to propound the policy for which we are responsible was the impossibility of meeting the coming winter without doing something for the settlement of Ireland. We have always stated, and we now still believe, that it is an unwise and unsafe policy to leave matters in Ireland for the winter without a remedy and without doing anything. We have always believed that there is only one alternative—that is to say, to propose for Ireland at once a policy either of conciliation or a policy of coercion—that one of these two policies will be absolutely necessary, and that it is impossible to avoid them. That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian has constantly stated in the course of the last few months. Therefore, there is no doubt we regard the responsibilities of the present Government as of the gravest character in undertaking to meet the coming winter in Ireland without doing anything at all—without propounding such measures for the maintenance of social order as may be necessary. But then the situation of the House is that the Government have the power and the responsibility, and we must consider what, with regard to the public interest, we can do in this matter. Having made our protest against the policy, in view of the coming winter in Ireland, of doing nothing on the part of the Government, we must lay upon them the whole responsibility of the consequences of their action. But I would ask the hon. Member for East Mayo what we can do in this matter, having regard to the responsibility which belongs to the Government—what course can we take? Suppose we reject the Motion of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) and adopt this Amendment we have no power to compel the Government to bring in remedial measures. The majority does not rest with us, and they have determined they will bring forward no measures with reference to Ireland this Session. The hon. Member for East Mayo and others had an opportunity on the Address of bringing forward their views with reference to the condition of Ireland and the dangers in Ireland, and of expressing their opinion as to the impolicy of the course the Government proposed to pursue. What more can they do, supposing the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were rejected? It is true in the ordinary course we might have at our disposal Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays; but the hon. Member for East Mayo must feel—I am sure we all feel—that in dealing with the question of Ireland it is hopeless to expect that we can deal with it by legislation of private Members. It is too large and grave a question to be disposed of in that manner. Nor can we hope to succeed by proceeding in that way. If the hon. Member for East Mayo, or any Member on this side, were to propound some measure opposed by a majority of this House, of course we should have no chance of passing it. The hon. Member might show the necessity and the gravity of the situation; but we have had an opportunity of doing that, and I would point out to the hon. Member that all future opportunities are not gone, because upon the various stages of the Appropriation Bill, before the final control of the money goes out of the hands of the House of Commons, for the purpose of bringing forward the consideration of a question of policy of that kind, the opportunity is given according to the Constitutional practice of the House. I do not see really what we can do to forward the object of the hon. Member, with which to a great extent I sympathize. If I thought we had any resource left of urging upon the Government more strongly than we have hitherto urged the danger of the delay they propose, and the extreme necessity and expediency of, in some form or other, bringing forward measures, there might be some reason for the Amendment. We can hardly ask them to bring forward the measures which they have suggested, because they are measures of which we do not approve. If I saw any way of pressing upon them, with any prospect of success, the expediency of dealing with the great dangers in Ireland, I would support the Amendment of the hon. Member; but I confess I do not see that we should succeed or have any better prospect of success than that which has been already afforded to us upon the Address, or that we may have again, if necessary, upon the Appropriation Bill. I do not see that any Motion to give private Members Wednesdays and Fridays would do any good. The hon. Member has spoken in a manner which is highly deserving of the attention of the House, and his words are deeply deserving the attention and consideration of the Government. But the Government are resolved to do nothing for Ireland till next February, and we are without the power to induce them to do so. Therefore, looking at all the circumstances of the case, to the necessities of the Public Service, and to the time—even if we had the disposal of the time from this until October we could not do anything in the face of the attitude of the Government—I do not myself see what can be gained even from the point of view of the hon. Member for East Mayo by the Amendment, and, as far as I am concerned, I shall support the Motion of the noble Lord.

said, he would be one of the greatest sufferers were the Motion of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) adopted, because of the place he held on the Paper—the first place on Wednesday—for an extremely important Bill, not exclusively an Irish Bill, but one affecting the community in general—he referred to the Amendment of the Employers' Liabilities Act. Any such Bill as that ought to receive a fair discussion, and he did not think any of the arguments brought forward by the noble Lord met the case. Were workmen to be shut out from compensation for six months or 12 months because certain hon. Members were anxious for a little relaxation? Hon. Members had not been very long there. They had only been in attendance about three weeks, and he thought they might be able to do something for the good of Ireland and the working classes. They had all had a good deal of relaxation recently—they had all had the excitement of a General Election; and if the noble Lord did not think he would be the better for doing some work which was urgent, he ought surely not to be indisposed to allow private Members to do it. The noble Lord asked the House to deprive Members of the privilege and opportunity of introducing measures, and he thought they could not consent to any such infringement of their rights. He did not quite follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), that they could not force the Government to undertake remedial measures. The Government might not always have a majority in the House. Private Bills might be brought forward or Resolutions which, the Liberal Unionists might feel bound to support. He did not think the Unionist Liberals always would support the Government to prevent radical measures or remedial measures for Ireland being carried. The noble Lord wished to limit their opportunities for bringing those test questions forward, and to that they could not consent. The noble Lord had proposed Commissioners. He did not think these Commissioners were bad in themselves; but what were they going to do for the next five or six months? What did the noble Lord think the people were to think and to do in the interval? If he were to do now even a little, a small portion of what was to be proposed in the grand scheme of the Commissioners—if he would only spend a little of the money now that he intended to do, and bring in a Bill for that purpose, he thought he would not be disappointed. That was quite apropos of the question now being discussed. To a certain extent, the hon. Members of the Government side were muzzled by their position, although he must confess that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) did not look as if he were muzzled. They, however, who sat upon the Opposition side were free, and why should they not be allowed to bring forward their different Bills, a course of action which ought, to a great extent, relieve the great responsibility of the noble Lord, and it would be for the Government to accept or to reject them?

said, he did not rise to obstruct the Business of the House, but to do what was the duty of every hon. Member—namely, to state the reason why he should vote for the Amendment, and why he trusted that every hon. Member who belonged to the same Party as himself would support it. He was sorry that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench did not see their way to vote for the Amendment; but he took no exception to the line of argument adopted by the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), whose conduct on the question of Ireland was daily commanding the increasing respect of that portion of the House in which he sat. His own reason for voting for the Amendment was a very simple one. He did not desire to urge upon the Government to bring forward any complete scheme relating to Ireland; but he saw a winter approaching full of promise of trouble, and he desired to obtain from the Government some form of expression of sympathy with those persons who were tenants, and who would suffer the most through the unfortunate troubles. Troubles were ahead in Ireland, and would be imminent when the Coercion Bill which he believed would shortly be proposed from the other side was brought in. It would be at least a comfort to him (Mr. Stuart) to recollect that he freed his conscience by joining with the Irish Members in warning the Government of the danger ahead.

said, Scotch Members, and even Scotch Radicals, were not always found siding with the Irish Nationalists, and he hoped hon. Members would pardon him if he asked a few minutes' indulgence while he endeavoured to explain what appeared to many the extraordinary phenomenon of the hon. Member for the Border Burghs supporting the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). Now, he was glad to intervene, even at this late stage, for this reason—that he saw Liberal Unionists and Unionist newspapers making the charge that the so-called Gladstonian Liberals were becoming ashamed of these Motions. He came quite frequently in contact with Gladstonian Liberals, and he never heard such an extraordinary opinion. Horace said that men easily believed what they wanted to believe; but the only opinion he heard expressed just now by those called Gladstonian Liberals was that the Scotch and the Welsh Radicals would firmly adhere to the Irish Nationalists in the present struggle, and endeavour to keep up the good spirit which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian had awakened within the Irish breast. The Amendment spoke of the urgency of measures for ameliorating the condition of the Irish people. It was on account of that urgency that he was in the British House of Commons. The people of the Border Burghs would never have quarrelled with such a dear political friend (Sir George Trevelyan) as they had had it not been that the condition of the Irish Question was so very urgent. When the Election came round and the candidates presented themselves the people asked the question—"Are you willing to give to the Irish people measures that will ameliorate their condition? Do you recognize, and will you rise to, the urgency of the question, and will you give them an Irish Parliament for the management of purely Irish affairs, because, if you do not, we must get servants who will execute our desires?" This policy of urgency his constituency in the Border Burghs considered so urgent that it caused them to make the great sacrifice to which he had referred—namely, of parting with Sir George Trevelyan. Now, however—when he came there—he found that this policy of urgency was met by what was called a policy of great deliberation, a policy which was presented to them as if it was something new, but which, after all, was a policy with which his constituents and himself were perfectly familiar. With reference to the words in the Address, "measures for ameliorating the condition of the Irish people," he might say that he did not propose to say a single word in regard to any political measure—in regard, that was to say, to Home Rule, though he dared say even that might very well come under the head of urgency. They had been promising and giving the Irish people political measures for the last 86 years, and for 86 years the condition of Ireland had gone steadily back. [Cries of "No!"] He would be glad to be corrected; but such was his reading of Irish history. He would not, however, say a single word on that question. The people of this country thought very strongly in politics, and he thought that the claim put forward by the Government for time to consider the remedy for laws which they admitted were bad and required reform—[Cries of "No!"] Well, he had seen many reports of speeches by Conservative Members, in which it was admitted that something very considerable must be done in the way of reform. He admitted that the claim on the part of the Government for time, so far as the reform of the laws was concerned, was a reasonable claim, and one he did not think the hon. Member for Cork or his followers were inclined to find fault with or dispute. If they had to wait for six, nine, 18, or 24 months until they had a Parliament in College Green, and got it at that time, they might be very well content. But there were some things—not political institutions—which the people of Ireland could not wait for so easily. When the poorest class of people were suffering from cold and hunger it was not so easy to ask them to wait. There were two claims of urgency before the House. One was the claim of the Government that they should have time to consider a Home Rule measure, or a measure of Irish government reform. And the Opposition asked, would the Government in the interval between the present time and the period when they intended to reform laws they admitted to be bad—would the Government give a guarantee in the meantime that these bad laws would not be used to oppress and tyrannize over the poor people of Ireland? Each Party had its clients, and each of them was entitled to state its clients' case. The Government had to plead for the landlords, who, he quite admitted, had not been getting their rents paid as they ought to do; but, on the other hand, they on the Opposition Benches had to plead for the poor people of Ireland, and they were equally entitled with the Government to be listened to. Reference had been made to a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) in which he suggested a suspension of evictions. He read the speech of the right hon. Member in which he suggested the suspension of evictions, and the view he (Mr. A. L. Brown) then took of it was, that the right hon. Gentleman was a man with a heart. He (Mr. A. L. Brown) took the same view of the matter; and he could not understand how any man with a heart, having once proposed the Suspension of Evictions Bill, could ever recede from that position. He could understand a great statesman saying political situations could wait; but he could not understand a man who admitted that the condition of the people was so bad as to necessitate a Suspension of Evictions Bill throwing up that proposal. He remembered that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham came to Scotland he won the hearts of the working men by his proposal to relieve the people of school rates, and to give the crofters not only their pastoral but also their arable land. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman why it was that he was rapidly losing the hearts of the working men? It was because that when the Irish tenants called upon him "for mercy's sake to stay and stick to his proposal to suspend evictions," he turned round and said—"No, the claims of Party will not allow me to do so." He appealed to the Liberal Unionists to reconsider this matter. A very grave responsibility rested on them. They had been boasting how the power really lay in their hands. A very serious state of facts had been brought forward—

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the Question of Precedence, which is sought to be given by the Resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, he was very sorry for having transgressed, but he would try to speak to the question of urgency. He appealed to the Government and to the Liberal Unionists, who claimed to hold the position of arbiters, not to turn a deaf ear to the cries and entreaties of the Irish people—who asked that something should be done for them before the winter—and warned them of the grave responsibility which rested upon them if they failed to realize their duty.

said, he objected to the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) because it trenched very dangerously upon the independence of the Privileges of Parliament. It would establish a precedent of a very sinister character. The noble Lord referred to the precedent of 1841. He submitted that the precedent quoted was one that would not bear the noble Lord out at all. In the year 1841, the Government of Lord Melbourne were defeated on the question of finance, at a time when the whole Kingdom was in a great state of distress, as Ireland now was. The question of the Corn Laws was being debated, and whatever Government were in power were under the necessity of dealing with that matter, as any Government now was under the necessity of dealing with the Irish Question. The noble Lord said Sir Robert Peel adopted the same plan; but Sir Robert Peel did nothing of the kind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted as much as suited his purpose, and had left out what told on the other side. On the 16th of September, when the Parliament met, Sir Robert Peel proposed to defer a state- ment of the intentions of the Government with regard to re-establishing the equilibrium between Income and Expenditure until the following year, and also to defer other matters; but, so far from obtaining the assent of his opponents to that proposal, he was opposed by Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston. So strong was the feeling of some hon. Members that the attitude of the Government was unjustifiable, that Mr. Fielden moved that no Supply be granted until after inquiry into the cause of the then existing distress. That was negatived by the obedient majority of the Government; but the debate and the division showed that the unusual precedent was not allowed to pass without Constitutional challenge. He (Mr. A. O'Connor) demurred altogether to the proposal—from a Constitutional point of view—to the establishment of such a precedent as the noble Lord proposed. He denied that the voting of Supplies was the only function of the House. The Houses of Parliament had, as their principal functions, to decide upon and formulate the legislation of the country, to inquire into grievances, and to reform the laws—functions quite as important as the supply of the necessary means of carrying on the administration of the Sovereign. [On this point the hon. Gentleman quoted from recognized Constitutional authorities in support of his contention]. The hon. Member proceeding, said, that the course Government proposed to adopt was in flagrant violence to the spirit of all Constitutional procedure, and it was likely to establish what might hereafter prove a very dangerous precedent, and it ought not to be allowed to pass without some protest at the hands of private Members. With regard to the Amendment, and the urgency of the situation in Ireland, it appeared to him to be a great pity that this House should, in the circumstances, be asked to limit its activity to the voting of Supplies for the Crown, without taking any measure for the relief of distress, the removal of abuse, or the reform of laws, whether in the shape of a Bill introduced by the Government or by a private Member.

said, he hoped that the House might now be willing to permit the debate to close. The hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. A. O'Connor) had raised what, in his (Mr. A. O'Connor's) mind, was a very grave Constitutional question. But the point really at issue appeared to be a very narrow one. It was not contended that it would be agreeable to the House, or advantageous to the Public Service of the country, that they should proceed with ordinary legislation at the present time. The only whisper to the contrary was in the case of the hon. Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), who had a little Bill of his own, for which he had a natural affection as for his own child. Considering the labours they had gone through during the past two years, both in and out of the House, they must all feel that a Recess of the ordinary duration was necessary to enable the House to prosecute to the best advantage the Business they had been elected to do. To proceed with such measures as had been placed on the Notice Paper by private Members, making changes of more or less importance in our laws, or to discuss changes of graver Constitutional importance, would be a thing they ought not to be asked to do, because their performance of it could in no respect be satisfactory to the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had told them that their choice with regard to Irish affairs was between a policy of conciliation and a policy of coercion; and, as he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had gathered from the right hon. Gentleman, he considered the policy of the Government was a policy of do nothing. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT was understood to express dissent.] He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) thought the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten that they had no such choice as that. What the right hon. Gentleman called a policy of conciliation was a policy of Constitutional change of the gravest importance, such as he and his Colleagues proposed in the last Parliament. Against that the present Government were pledged as strongly as any Government could be. Neither now nor in February were they at all likely to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman's other alternative was a policy of coercion. Did he want the Government to bring in a Coercion Bill at once for Ireland? It might be difficult for hon. Gentlemen to be- lieve, but it was none the less true, that the Government were not naturally fond of what was called coercion for Ireland. They would infinitely prefer to maintain order in Ireland through the process of the ordinary law. They were endeavouring to do that now, and they had explained to the House the means by which they proposed to operate. But they had not concealed from the House that if those means should prove insufficient, they might be compelled to have recourse to Parliament for greater powers of the nature which the right hon. Gentleman described. The complaint from hon. Members below the Gangway, including the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), appeared to be that the Government did not at once apply to Parliament to revive powers of this nature.

said, the complaint was that they did not apply to Parliament for some Bill which would obviate the necessity hereafter to apply for further powers for coercion.

said, that was a third alternative; but it had not been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby.

said, he had not meant to confine the Government to the conciliation involved in the proposals of the late Government. He had referred to a general measure of conciliation.

said, it was a little difficult to understand what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby did mean. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) quite admitted that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his Colleagues, from their point of view, were entitled to blame the Government for not adopting the policy which was in the mind of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon); but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had no right to make such a charge against them because he had found himself unable to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork. The hon. Member for Cork and his Friends below the Gangway were of opinion that, owing to the fall in prices, the tenant farmers in Ireland could not pay even the judicial rents; and what they wished the House to pass was a Bill practically suspending evictions. That narrow point was really the issue between them. The hon. Member for Cork and his Friends asked for no other legislation now. He himself (Mr. Parnell) had said that he did not expect or desire a general revision of the Land Act at this time of the year. All he wished was a measure suspending evictions. He had urged the proposal with all the power of which he was possessed, and was supported by hon. Members around him, and by some who sat opposite, but not by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. The Government had given the House their reasons for not adopting the proposal of the hon. Member for Cork, and, after full discussion, the matter had been decided against the hon. Gentleman; and yet the refusal to give the Government the time it asked for was based solely on the desire to raise this question again. It was not the fact that hon. Members would not have ample opportunities in the course of the discussion of the Votes in Supply, as well as at different stages of the Appropriation Bill, of bringing forward any matters in which they might take an interest. The Government did not, as his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) said, shrink from a full and ample discussion of those Votes. But what they did say was that they were, early in September, at a period of the year when it was extremely irksome to the great majority of hon. Members to be compelled to proceed with other than the necessary Business. They had had arduous work during the past few months, and they were entitled to a holiday. The Government asked the House to do that which was necessary for the completion of the ordinary Business of the year, and nothing else. They did not agree with the hon. Member for Cork that there was urgent need for that legislation affecting the question of Irish land which he desired. They deemed that there was reason for inquiry into that matter. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, but that was their policy. They admitted that there was reason for inquiry, and that inquiry they would undertake at once. They had every reason to anticipate that when next Session came they should be prepared with proposals on that important subject. But if the Government were to do any good with the policy which had been fully placed before the House by his noble Friend, they must have that time to consider their proposals to which every Government was entitled. It was not possible for the Government to go further than they had done at the present time in making proposals for legislation. When the time for doing so came he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby would find that his taunt of a do-nothing policy was—in the circumstances—a very unfair description. For the present the first duty of the Government was to take steps for the proper administration of the affairs of Ireland. They had no more desire—as he had repeatedly stated to the House—than hon. Members opposite that there should be any harshness exercised by landlords towards tenants who were unable to pay their rent; but if tenants are able to pay their rent they ought to be made to do so, and the law of the land ought to be enforced in support of the maintenance of legal obligations. As to the future, the Government had announced their policy. By that policy they should abide. They asked the House now to transact the necessary Business for the year with as great expedition as possible, in order that hon. Members might be relieved from a very irksome duty, and in order that the Government might be able to turn their attention to measures which they hoped would prove of real advantage to Ireland.

I wish to explain, as the reason why I was not in my place to move the Amendment which stands in my name, that I was under the impression that the discussion upon the hon. Member for Northampton's (Mr. Labouchere's) Motion on the Report of the Address would have been resumed as the first Order. If I had understood that the Motion of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) was to have been brought forward thus early, I should certainly have been in my place to move the Amendment which I have given Notice of in opposition to the Motion of the noble Lord. It certainly was from no discourtesy to the noble Lord or to the House that I was absent. With reference to the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo has moved, I am glad he had the opportunity of moving an Amendment giving effect to the same view as I put forward, and of making a speech in support of it. I propose to make some observations with regard to the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and also with regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). I have also a word or two to say with regard to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). I wish to say that I do not find fault with the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has taken upon this matter. I think it is reasonable that an English Member in his position should perhaps think it better, in all the circumstances of the case, to support the original urgency Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but we Irish Members are in a very different position. My experience in this House has been, in reference to any gains that we have made, any victories which we have carried, that nothing is got except by constant persistence. The motto of "Try, try, try again" is the best one for the Irish Members to adopt. It has been successful in the case of every movement that we have made during the last 11 years in this House. I can run over very many matters, from the question of the abolition of flogging in the Army to the question of Irish autonomy, in which we have been engaged, and which has been simply brought to the front by a constant persistence, and by an exhibition of a belief, I hope, on our part, in the honesty and justice of the claims we made in this House. As regarded the charge of Obstruction, I think present circumstances showed it to be an absurdity, because I have shown last night that there was really no Business to obstruct. If I had desired to obstruct Public Business or the Government, I should certainly not waste powder and shot on this Session, but would keep it for next Session, when the Government would have brought forward their legislative measures. Of course, we are in this position, and we see that, in the present state of affairs, there is an analogy with that which presented itself at the close of the Session of 1880, when we had brought forward in the beginning of the Session a small Bill which was the foundation of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. We brought forward that Bill as private Members on a Wednesday, and one of the propositions which the present Government make in this Resolution is to take away the Wednesdays from private Members, so that we may not have the opportunity of doing what we did then. The Government of the day, as the result of the debate on that Bill, promised to introduce a measure of their own. That measure was subsequently introduced in the form of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, which was carried through all its stages by considerable majorities, and subsequently thrown out by the House of Lords. The present situation is analogous. You have in Ireland a state of affairs more intensified in their probable evil effects than existed even in 1880; consequently the necessity is all the more imperative on our part to urge on the Government the adoption of remedial legislation, and if they refuse to produce anything themselves, that we should produce something on our own account. In the debate on the Address I urged on the Government that they should bring forward a measure in reference to the Irish Land Question. The Government have refused to bring forward such a measure; I now propose to bring forward such a measure myself. I am at present engaged, with the help of some of my hon. Friends, in drafting the measure, and one of my objects in placing the Amendment to the Resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Paper was to save, at all events, one Wednesday from the grasp of the Government for the discussion of that Bill. What I propose will be this. I do not know whether I shall be in Order in sketching the outline of the proposed measure that I submitted to the Government. I have described it in the debate on the Address. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland is mistaken in supposing that in the debate on the Address I only recommended a measure for the suspension of evictions. I have not recommended the suspension of evictions absolutely. I have recommended, in the first place, that power should be given to Irish leaseholders to apply to the Courts to fix a judicial rent. That is a proposal which has been made by two hon. Gentlemen, one a Liberal Unionist and the other a Conservative. Secondly, I recommended that power should be given to the tenants who had their rents fixed prior to a year or two ago to apply to the Courts for a revision on the basis of prices. Thirdly, I recommended that power should be given—as it is given in the Land Act—to the Courts to suspend proceedings in ejectments—not to suspend evictions—on payment, say, of three-fourths of the old or original rent. What I wish to ask the Government is this, and I think that the question is a fair one. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has said, that hon. Members are here at present at considerable inconvenience. No doubt that is so. The heat of the weather recently has been very great, and hon. Members undoubtedly would very much desire to have a few weeks' holiday and a short respite from their Parliamentary labours. I myself would like it very much, and I sympathize with these feelings very strongly; but, at the same time, I think it is a low ground for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to base his case upon. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House, if they really thought they could save suffering, starvation, or crime in Ireland by remaining a week, a fortnight, or even a month longer at this period at their work, would not hesitate to make the sacrifice. Recollect that the House at its adjournment will be absent from legislative duties for five months. Five months is a long period to look forward to. A shorter period than that constituted the critical period in 1880. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the proposals of the Government with regard to Ireland and the Land Question will be ready next February. But what we fear is this—that the passions and irritation of hon. Members of this House, and of the people of England, will have risen so much in the meantime that when that period arrives they will only have a mind for the consideration of one question, and that will be coercion. For myself, I will not allow those golden moments to be lost—moments which may never come again. The Irish Members have no control, neither have the Government control, over the events in Ireland in the coming winter. The right hon. Gentleman need not suppose, by my allusion to the events of 1880, that I am going to head any such agitation as then took place. I do not believe there will be such an agitation; but I believe that the situation of the tenantry of Ireland will be so desperate, so much more terrible, desperate, and critical than it was in those days, that there will be spontaneous movements among them which neither the Irish Members, nor the Government, nor anyone else will be able to control, and which will excite irritation, passion, and indignation in this country against the Irish people, so that politicians and statesmen will lose their balance. What I ask is that the Government should not shut the last door against the last consideration of this question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has spoken of the Report stage on the Appropriation Bill, and other stages of the Appropriation Bill, as offering us an opportunity for debate. The stages of the Appropriation Bill will come, I believe, at the end of this Session. I have only to say that that would be too late for our purpose. The time will then have gone by to make any effectual protest. Now is the time for us to try and make any effectual protest we may desire to make. Now is the time for us to state what we think is right and desirable, and to urge our proposals. If the Government will tack to the Resolution—it need not be done by a formal Amendment, a promise will be quite sufficient—an undertaking to afford us sufficient time to allow the definitive judgment of the House of Commons to be taken upon a measure the outlines of which I have not sketched, although I have suggested its nature, in that case I shall be glad to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo, who moved this Amendment, to withdraw it. I believe that, when the House sees the moderate nature and character of the Bill, the measure will be supported by both sides, and the Government will probably think better of their proposal to allow this long weary interval of five mouths to elapse, and to permit a chasm to be thrown between the two countries which it might not be possible for us to fill.

I think I should not be paying due respect to the House if I did not offer some words in reply to the observations which have fallen from the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). I must premise my observations by saying that I altogether dispute the analogy which he has thought fit to draw between the conditions of Ireland in 1880 and those of the present time. The conditions of 1880 were these—that over a very large part of Ireland famine raged; there had been a total failure of crops; and there was great distress, verging on starvation, among many families who, indeed, were only kept from starvation by grants from the State and by the efforts of private charities. [Mr. PARNELL: Not at the end of 1880.] No doubt, the country was recovering from the failure of the potato of 1878 and 1879; but there was immense distress in the country in 1880, and I know that the operations of the Relief Fund started under Viceregal auspices were continued well into 1881. Therefore, I cannot agree with the analogy of the hon. Member for Cork. What I have to say, however, on the part of the Government is, that it always has been, and always will be, so far as I and my Colleagues are concerned, our anxious desire in the arrangement of the Business of Parliament to meet, to the utmost possible extent, the general convenience of the House at large, and to recognize the position of great responsibility occupied by certain persons in opposition to the Government. We recognize that the responsibility of the hon. Member for Cork is, undoubtedly, very great, as great, perhaps, as that of any individual in the House; and I will admit that it is, perhaps, not altogether unreasonable, if the hon. Member for Cork, acting under that great sense of responsibility, and supported by his followers and others in this House, considers it to be his duty, and believes that it can possibly lead to any useful result, to place in detail before the House his views on the Land Question in the form of a Bill—his views of what is necessary to be done in regard to the Land Question in Ireland immediately, that we should admit that those views are undoubtedly worthy of the consideration of the House and of the Government. But this must be clearly understood—that the Government have already deliberately made their announcement to the House in regard to their views on the present state of the Land Question in Ireland; and however much those views may have been misrepresented, and however much they may have been mis- represented and perverted for Party purposes, we stand by them, and we shall neither add to them nor take from them, and we shall not recede from them or alter them in any way as far as the presion Session is concerned. But if the hon. Member for Cork desires for the sake of his own Party, and for the interests of his country generally, to make a fuller and more detailed statement of the manner in which he would deal with the Land Question of Ireland, the Government, without holding out the smallest or slightest expectation that they can in the smallest or slightest degree approach to any kind of agreement with the hon. Member for Cork, would not feel justified in withholding from him the opportunity which he seeks. I will certainly undertake to grant that opportunity on behalf of the Government, expressing, at the same time, a very earnest hope that our action may not be misrepresented and perverted as our former statements have been. Lean only say that if the hon. Member for Cork desires, before the Session closes, at a moment when it may be most convenient to himself and to the House, and when his proposals are prepared, that a special Sitting of the House should be set apart for the exposition and discussion of his proposals, the Government would be prepared to meet him to that extent. But in that case the Government would make an appeal to the hon. Member and his Friends, and to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt), whose support this evening I am very glad to acknowledge, that this action on the part of the Government should be met in a corresponding spirit, and that hon. Members opposite should not take undue advantage of the great facilities for protracting Business which, undoubtedly, Supply affords; but that, so far as Party responsibility and Party action will admit, they should, on all non-controversial matters of Supply, co-operate with the Government to bring them to an early and a reasonable conclusion. I have, myself, no other desire, except that, as far as possible, we should act in harmony in this House, and I am willing to undergo a certain amount of risk and of misunderstanding in order to attain that most desirable end.

I believe I shall be express- ing the unanimous opinion of those who sit on this side of the House in saying that we notice in the remarks of the noble Lord a spirit with which we entirely sympathize, and which we must regard, and do regard, as extremely re-assuring in a rather serious emergency. The proposal of the hon. Member for Cork was made with such a sense of the gravity of the situation, and in terms so moderate and persuasive, that in all parts of the House I am sure it must have been felt in the highest degree desirable to meet, if possible, the hon. Member's views. The noble Lord has perceived the justice of the hon. Member's position. I think that we all thoroughly understand what the noble Lord has impressed upon us—namely, that in professing his willingness to accede to the proposal of the hon. Member he makes clear the nature of his position, and impresses upon us that he commits himself, his Colleagues, and his followers to no assent whatever, necessarily, to any propositions which the hon. Member may think fit to make. I should say that, whatever the fate of the hon. Member's Bill may be, the fact of such a Bill having been produced on the responsibility of an hon. Member in his position, supported by his followers and others in various parts of the House, and of its having been discussed from various points of view, will in itself be an operation that should conduce to the success of those deliberations which the Government are about to undertake in the autumn. I say this without prejudice to the hope that the Bill may be of such a kind—in view of the emergency that I have always believed with the hon. Member for Cork since the Session began existed in Ireland, and which may possibly be aggravated in the coming months—as may on its merits possibly secure for it a larger degree of assent from the Government than, at present, the noble Lord thinks likely. But of that I will say no more. I only desire to express the sincere satisfaction with which we have the announcement of the noble Lord; and I think we may express our intention, as far as we can, of furthering by every possible means the progress of Public Business.

said that, in view of the statement which the noble Lord had just made, he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.